I like these a lot but I think they would be best in a small set. Assuming your block is Large-Small-Small, I would save these for the last set.
I would also give them abilities that would make sense if the card was flipped. So for the BW one I would use Lifelink, the RB one is fine, and for the last I would use Hexproof.
Love the thread title. I take it these would be printed similarly? That brings up a question-- Does the color indicator replace the card's other colors, or add to them? Is Mwonvuli Crab a Blue creature or a Blue/Green creature? It might actually be clearer here to pass on the color indicator and just add a line of text "Mwonvuli Crab is blue and green."
As for the cards themselves, I think they would gel better if the secondary color felt like it contributed something to the card. You could give Aphetto Wretch First Strike instead of Deathtouch-- it's tertiary in Black, and feels acceptable because the card is part white.
Love the thread title. I take it these would be printed similarly? That brings up a question-- Does the color indicator replace the card's other colors, or add to them? Is Mwonvuli Crab a Blue creature or a Blue/Green creature? It might actually be clearer here to pass on the color indicator and just add a line of text "Mwonvuli Crab is blue and green."
As for the cards themselves, I think they would gel better if the secondary color felt like it contributed something to the card. You could give Aphetto Wretch First Strike instead of Deathtouch-- it's tertiary in Black, and feels acceptable because the card is part white.
There is only so much design space with them plus if you have too many in the block, it will most likely break your limited environment.
I thought the whole point of the color indicator was to remove the wording?
Right now my thought is to have a 5-card cycle in this set and another 5-card cycle in set two. I agree that quantities should be restricted on account of Limited.
I don't know about wording vs. color indicator. I want to make it clear that they are not the color of their mana cost. What do you think is best?
Play with the actual mock-ups and see what happens. The main problem with these is the potential to miss-assess them in Limited - the format they are meant to be used in.
I propose using hybrid instead if you think this kind of interaction is necessary.
Alternatively you could make for a cycle of cards with alternative costs that don't cost mana. They take on more complexity points which is why it's not the preferred solution:
Coastal Kavu :4mana::symg:
Creature - Kavu
You may return two [blue?] permanents you control to your hand rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
Trample
3/3
Prowling Squire :1mana::symb:
Creature - Human Knight
You may tap an untapped [white] creature you control rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
2/1
Spoilwater Merfolk :1mana::symu:
Creature - Merfolk Rogue
You may play ~ without paying its mana cost if you control two or more Swamps.
~ can't block or be blocked.
1/1
etc.
Choosing one version of this alternative cost could help to keep the complexity down and is advised, but hybrid gets still the highest ranking.
EDIT: It would also have been a nice idea to actually put the full text of Coalesce up there rather than a link.
The problem with the mechanic is that you want to turn on coalesce with it - I myself noticed that too late, but it means the following solutions don't work/seem sensible:
If you have the basic land type already, you could easily play an appropriately colored creature for a cost of that color instead. Now you have a weird cycle with the play-value that you can have white creatures if you control Plain. That's approximately zero gain in the direction you wanted.
If not land type, consider:
~ is <color> as long as
it is enchanted by a <color> aura.
you control a <color> permanent.
you do not control a <color> permanent.
you have cat a <color> spell this turn.
Except for option three this is no gain, but starts to create terrible board states - imagine you have multiple of them that randomly look after each others primary/secondary color and someone plays a spell like Cerulean Wisps.
Notice also that caring only about one color rather than a color-independent threshold is a problem here, e. g. with the fourth version: Imagine you have the three creatures you have suggested and want to cast a black spell with coalesce - you get it cheaper only if you control no black creature, so to get the spell cheaper you have to first invest mana and a card to cast another black spell so your black dude becomes white instead. You better also haven't cast a green spell before or otherwise your green dude randomly turns black and blocks your black coalesce.
That's not the kind of decision making that benefits the flow of the game.
Again, the other option is to do something like this:
This in theory works, but once you actually read coalesce, you know what works better? The same creature without color: Standard artifact creatures for example.
Coalesce wants you to not have the color you are playing next, but it doesn't care about you having any color at all - creatures that allow you access to colors you otherwise couldn't have are not what coalesce wants. Coalesce wants Ghostflame Sliver.
If you want to play better with a color theme that cares sometimes also about what you have rather than what you do not have, coalesce also accepts the activated ability of Kavu Chameleon or Tidal Visionary/Vodalian Mystic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Coalesce wants you to not have the color you are playing next, but it doesn't care about you having any color at all - creatures that allow you access to colors you otherwise couldn't have are not what coalesce wants. Coalesce wants Ghostflame Sliver.
I agree, but I upgraded coalesce* to a cross-factional mechanic because I saw the potential for it to play well (and differently) with both the Coalition and the Kaldarjar factions. The Kaldarjar faction is taking the colorless route with this mechanic. In order to really maximize the difference in how each faction handles it, I don't want to adopt another colorless solution for the Coalition faction, especially when they're supposed to be flying the multicolor flag in this set.
Anyway, I've attached an MSE mockup of what one of these cards would look like. I think it's pretty clear how it's supposed to work.
*(the name of "coalesce" is going to change at some point.)
I do not like this at all. I get that not everything on a card needs to have significant meaning or value in a vacuum, but this is a lot of work for a trailblaze enabler when I'm not sure that the mechanic even needs one. Something really cool that I didn't realize immediately upon reading about it is that a coalition player could build a deck with blue permanents, but have all of the sorceries (with trailblaze) be red.
Something really cool that I didn't realize immediately upon reading about it is that a coalition player could build a deck with blue permanents, but have all of the sorceries (with trailblaze) be red.
There aren't going to be any non-permanent cards with coalesce, at least not in this set. The only exception might be for instants and sorceries that create creature tokens.
When people say, "This is too hard to understand," I just don't get that. We've had colored artifacts, spells without mana costs, and cards with characteristic-setting text for the longest time. It's a spell that's one color, but it costs another color of mana to cast. The set has a need for these. They're not really all that complex.
No. The set has a want for these, maybe. But I think that the design does not need these for that very reason. Sometimes a mechanic is fun because of the strategy and buildup required to pull it off - a few enablers in a set is good, but not an entire 'nother mechanic built around making it easy.
For instance, Morbid in Innistrad wants a mechanic like Offering or Evoke - but if they had put that into the set, it would have been far too trivial to pull off your Morbid triggers. Instead, they had a few enablers - like Stitcher's Apprentice and Disciple of Griselbrand - rather than entire part of the set devoted to it.
Another good example is Infect. People wanted a way to remove poison counters, but that went against the intention of the mechanic - to feel invasive and unrelenting. The set did not need antidote mechanics - and it was better off without them.
Your players may want to be able to pull off coalesce/trailblaze in as few colors as possible - but is that really the point of coalesce/trailblaze? I thought it was supposed to represent a coalition of multiple colors? So why are you making it trivial for a monored deck to have a black permanent on the field, and reap the rewards of it? It goes against the feel, flavor, and intent behind the design of coalesce/trailblaze.
The lesson here is: sometimes what a player wants is exactly what your set doesn't need.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Known as Inanimate at Goblin Artisans, and TyrRev at /r/custommagic!
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
It's a thought-provoking question, TurboJustice. And it does get right at the heart of how I'm building multicolor in this set.
They way I've thought about it, the Coalition faction wants you to play as many colors as possible, period. Does the Coalition faction care if one of your green cards and one of your red cards were cast using white mana only? Not really, as I have envisioned it. They're just happy that you have a green card and a red card on the board.
Now, I could think about it a different way. I think you're suggesting that I could think about the Coalition as wanting you to have as diverse a mana base as possible. As in, the Coalition wants to be able to tap for at least WUBRG every turn, so it can play everything on the up-and-up. It's a subtle distinction most of the time, but it's a distinction that has direct bearing on these cards.
For me, the first philosophy seems more fun. By hook or by crook, get five colors on the board. It feels like a goal towards which you could work. The second feels like make-work to me. It's just about the POTENTIAL to have 5-color play, not 5-color itself, necessarily. By the first philosophy, these cards feel like you're getting a good deal, and I think that seems fun - I can get 5 colors on the board without needing WUBRG. Under philosophy number two, it feels like I'm violating the very principle upon which I'm building a 5-color mana base - that it allows me to play every color of card.
But the more I think about it, the more I like the first philosophy as the Coalition philosophy. Obviously I'm not going to subvert the color wheel like this all over the place. But, this is just a 5-card cycle right now. And it might really only be 5 cards in this set.
I was simply noting that this ability is possibly too big of a facilitator for coalesce/trailblaze - part of the fun of Magic is finding creative ways to build to the strategies it provides. For instance, how best to use Immortal Servitude, or how to best turn on Landfall. But readily providing answers to these riddles undermines the fun of solving them. You know?
Also, I disagree with your interpretation of the Coalition. Wasn't Domain one of the big mechanics of Invasion block?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Known as Inanimate at Goblin Artisans, and TyrRev at /r/custommagic!
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
Also, I disagree with your interpretation of the Coalition. Wasn't Domain one of the big mechanics of Invasion block?
It was, but Alara borrowed it, and I'm not asking for it back.
This iteration of the Coalition isn't going to be exactly the same as the last one.
But, I will definitely consider whether this mechanic makes the 5-color thing too easy to attain. If this cycle trivializes the Coalition faction's main mechanics, then I will certainly cut them. I'm just thinking that these aren't going to undermine that theme too much.
Oh yes, definitely playtest with them. But I just think this is too 'cute' of a way to say "play with the Coalition mechanic!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Known as Inanimate at Goblin Artisans, and TyrRev at /r/custommagic!
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
Have you consider making less color-themed mechanics? You have catalyst going as a color-themed mechanic. Putting in another top-down designed mechanic for the coalition over a mechanic that blurs the differences factions seems like a better way to go (and actively counteracts the theme it was supposed to provide - s. b.).
How is five-color play encouraged in the set anyway? Coalesce already punishes you for playing multicolored permanents and is supposed to be partly a Coalition mechanic - is that the right message you are sending?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
When people say, "This is too hard to understand," I just don't get that. We've had colored artifacts, spells without mana costs, and cards with characteristic-setting text for the longest time. It's a spell that's one color, but it costs another color of mana to cast. The set has a need for these. They're not really all that complex.
I didn't say it was complex or too hard to understand, it's not I assure you! By extra work I merely mean fighting people's natural inclination to expect a card that's the same color as its mana cost. I don't see anything fundamentally weird or potentially rage-inducing about putting trailblaze on sorceries to justify an action that is.
How is five-color play encouraged in the set anyway? Coalesce already punishes you for playing multicolored permanents and is supposed to be partly a Coalition mechanic - is that the right message you are sending?
Good questions. I acknowledge that coalesce is working at cross-purposes with multicolor permanents. But so far the response to coalesce has been very positive. I'm considering a couple different solutions on the multicolor front.
One angle is to have a lot of multicolored non-permanents. Those won't be enemies with coalesce. Another angle is to present multicolored permanents that are novel enough that people won't care (ignite,) or at least I hope they won't.
But obviously I want some multicolored creatures. All I can say right now is that I'm trying. I don't really want to introduce another mechanic on these creatures just to shoehorn them in with coalesce. I want the freedom to just create some cool creatures. So it's a question of engineering other cards in the environment to key in on the small overlap in play styles between coalesce and multicolored permanents. I don't have the solution figured out, yet.
I stumbled into this thread, and I just want to say... I'm colorblind, and without the reminder text I wouldn't be able to tell if a green card with R in its cost was green or red. Just something to keep in mind. I think you're fine with the card as it is now.
One angle is to have a lot of multicolored non-permanents. Those won't be enemies with coalesce. Another angle is to present multicolored permanents that are novel enough that people won't care (ignite,) or at least I hope they won't.
But obviously I want some multicolored creatures. All I can say right now is that I'm trying. I don't really want to introduce another mechanic on these creatures just to shoehorn them in with coalesce. I want the freedom to just create some cool creatures. So it's a question of engineering other cards in the environment to key in on the small overlap in play styles between coalesce and multicolored permanents. I don't have the solution figured out, yet.
Again, I'm no expert, but could you make all or most of the multicolor permanents cost 5 or more mana? By then coalesce would be less relevant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
Creature - Human Rogue [C]
(This card is white, not black, even if it's not on the battlefield.)
Deathtouch
[1/1]
Creature - Goblin Berserker [C]
(This card is black, not red, even if it's not on the battlefield.)
Intimidate
[2/1]
Creature - Crab [C]
(This card is blue, not green, even if it's not on the battlefield.)
Trample
[3/6]
I would also give them abilities that would make sense if the card was flipped. So for the BW one I would use Lifelink, the RB one is fine, and for the last I would use Hexproof.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
As for the cards themselves, I think they would gel better if the secondary color felt like it contributed something to the card. You could give Aphetto Wretch First Strike instead of Deathtouch-- it's tertiary in Black, and feels acceptable because the card is part white.
Just curious, why?
I should probably adopt Transguild Courier wording.
There is only so much design space with them plus if you have too many in the block, it will most likely break your limited environment.
I thought the whole point of the color indicator was to remove the wording?
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
Right now my thought is to have a 5-card cycle in this set and another 5-card cycle in set two. I agree that quantities should be restricted on account of Limited.
I don't know about wording vs. color indicator. I want to make it clear that they are not the color of their mana cost. What do you think is best?
One.
Aphetto Wretch is white, not black, in all zones. But you pay its mana cost with :symb:.
I propose using hybrid instead if you think this kind of interaction is necessary.
Alternatively you could make for a cycle of cards with alternative costs that don't cost mana. They take on more complexity points which is why it's not the preferred solution:
Creature - Kavu
You may return two [blue?] permanents you control to your hand rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
Trample
3/3
Creature - Human Knight
You may tap an untapped [white] creature you control rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
2/1
Creature - Merfolk Rogue
You may play ~ without paying its mana cost if you control two or more Swamps.
~ can't block or be blocked.
1/1
Choosing one version of this alternative cost could help to keep the complexity down and is advised, but hybrid gets still the highest ranking.
EDIT: It would also have been a nice idea to actually put the full text of Coalesce up there rather than a link.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Ah! I thought you wanted to make these two colors, not one.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
If you have the basic land type already, you could easily play an appropriately colored creature for a cost of that color instead. Now you have a weird cycle with the play-value that you can have white creatures if you control Plain. That's approximately zero gain in the direction you wanted.
Except for option three this is no gain, but starts to create terrible board states - imagine you have multiple of them that randomly look after each others primary/secondary color and someone plays a spell like Cerulean Wisps.
Notice also that caring only about one color rather than a color-independent threshold is a problem here, e. g. with the fourth version: Imagine you have the three creatures you have suggested and want to cast a black spell with coalesce - you get it cheaper only if you control no black creature, so to get the spell cheaper you have to first invest mana and a card to cast another black spell so your black dude becomes white instead. You better also haven't cast a green spell before or otherwise your green dude randomly turns black and blocks your black coalesce.
That's not the kind of decision making that benefits the flow of the game.
This in theory works, but once you actually read coalesce, you know what works better? The same creature without color: Standard artifact creatures for example.
Coalesce wants you to not have the color you are playing next, but it doesn't care about you having any color at all - creatures that allow you access to colors you otherwise couldn't have are not what coalesce wants. Coalesce wants Ghostflame Sliver.
If you want to play better with a color theme that cares sometimes also about what you have rather than what you do not have, coalesce also accepts the activated ability of Kavu Chameleon or Tidal Visionary/Vodalian Mystic.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I agree, but I upgraded coalesce* to a cross-factional mechanic because I saw the potential for it to play well (and differently) with both the Coalition and the Kaldarjar factions. The Kaldarjar faction is taking the colorless route with this mechanic. In order to really maximize the difference in how each faction handles it, I don't want to adopt another colorless solution for the Coalition faction, especially when they're supposed to be flying the multicolor flag in this set.
Anyway, I've attached an MSE mockup of what one of these cards would look like. I think it's pretty clear how it's supposed to work.
*(the name of "coalesce" is going to change at some point.)
There aren't going to be any non-permanent cards with coalesce, at least not in this set. The only exception might be for instants and sorceries that create creature tokens.
When people say, "This is too hard to understand," I just don't get that. We've had colored artifacts, spells without mana costs, and cards with characteristic-setting text for the longest time. It's a spell that's one color, but it costs another color of mana to cast. The set has a need for these. They're not really all that complex.
No. The set has a want for these, maybe. But I think that the design does not need these for that very reason. Sometimes a mechanic is fun because of the strategy and buildup required to pull it off - a few enablers in a set is good, but not an entire 'nother mechanic built around making it easy.
For instance, Morbid in Innistrad wants a mechanic like Offering or Evoke - but if they had put that into the set, it would have been far too trivial to pull off your Morbid triggers. Instead, they had a few enablers - like Stitcher's Apprentice and Disciple of Griselbrand - rather than entire part of the set devoted to it.
Another good example is Infect. People wanted a way to remove poison counters, but that went against the intention of the mechanic - to feel invasive and unrelenting. The set did not need antidote mechanics - and it was better off without them.
Your players may want to be able to pull off coalesce/trailblaze in as few colors as possible - but is that really the point of coalesce/trailblaze? I thought it was supposed to represent a coalition of multiple colors? So why are you making it trivial for a monored deck to have a black permanent on the field, and reap the rewards of it? It goes against the feel, flavor, and intent behind the design of coalesce/trailblaze.
The lesson here is: sometimes what a player wants is exactly what your set doesn't need.
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
They way I've thought about it, the Coalition faction wants you to play as many colors as possible, period. Does the Coalition faction care if one of your green cards and one of your red cards were cast using white mana only? Not really, as I have envisioned it. They're just happy that you have a green card and a red card on the board.
Now, I could think about it a different way. I think you're suggesting that I could think about the Coalition as wanting you to have as diverse a mana base as possible. As in, the Coalition wants to be able to tap for at least WUBRG every turn, so it can play everything on the up-and-up. It's a subtle distinction most of the time, but it's a distinction that has direct bearing on these cards.
For me, the first philosophy seems more fun. By hook or by crook, get five colors on the board. It feels like a goal towards which you could work. The second feels like make-work to me. It's just about the POTENTIAL to have 5-color play, not 5-color itself, necessarily. By the first philosophy, these cards feel like you're getting a good deal, and I think that seems fun - I can get 5 colors on the board without needing WUBRG. Under philosophy number two, it feels like I'm violating the very principle upon which I'm building a 5-color mana base - that it allows me to play every color of card.
But the more I think about it, the more I like the first philosophy as the Coalition philosophy. Obviously I'm not going to subvert the color wheel like this all over the place. But, this is just a 5-card cycle right now. And it might really only be 5 cards in this set.
Also, I disagree with your interpretation of the Coalition. Wasn't Domain one of the big mechanics of Invasion block?
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
It was, but Alara borrowed it, and I'm not asking for it back.
This iteration of the Coalition isn't going to be exactly the same as the last one.
But, I will definitely consider whether this mechanic makes the 5-color thing too easy to attain. If this cycle trivializes the Coalition faction's main mechanics, then I will certainly cut them. I'm just thinking that these aren't going to undermine that theme too much.
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
How is five-color play encouraged in the set anyway? Coalesce already punishes you for playing multicolored permanents and is supposed to be partly a Coalition mechanic - is that the right message you are sending?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Why not?
I didn't say it was complex or too hard to understand, it's not I assure you! By extra work I merely mean fighting people's natural inclination to expect a card that's the same color as its mana cost. I don't see anything fundamentally weird or potentially rage-inducing about putting trailblaze on sorceries to justify an action that is.
Good questions. I acknowledge that coalesce is working at cross-purposes with multicolor permanents. But so far the response to coalesce has been very positive. I'm considering a couple different solutions on the multicolor front.
One angle is to have a lot of multicolored non-permanents. Those won't be enemies with coalesce. Another angle is to present multicolored permanents that are novel enough that people won't care (ignite,) or at least I hope they won't.
But obviously I want some multicolored creatures. All I can say right now is that I'm trying. I don't really want to introduce another mechanic on these creatures just to shoehorn them in with coalesce. I want the freedom to just create some cool creatures. So it's a question of engineering other cards in the environment to key in on the small overlap in play styles between coalesce and multicolored permanents. I don't have the solution figured out, yet.
Again, I'm no expert, but could you make all or most of the multicolor permanents cost 5 or more mana? By then coalesce would be less relevant.
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic